Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of alternate infrastructure to replace copper wire ADSL systems.

Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

ADSL relies on the copper based Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The PSTN is increasingly unreliable and prone to failure. In 2024/25 there were over 2,600 major incidents on the PSTN, each affecting 500 or more customers. This is why industry have taken the decision to upgrade to fibre-based Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP).

VoIP technology is more resilient, more secure, enables better quality phone calls, and can be used to block scam calls. Fibre cables are less prone to damage during severe weather events, have a 50% lower fault rate than copper, and are more energy efficient. Fibre based digital infrastructure offers customers significantly faster speeds than copper-based ADSL.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the BBC proposals in, A BBC For All, that all future Non-Executive Director (NED) appointments to the Board should follow a defined, transparent and consistent process.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The government welcomes the BBC’s response to the Charter Review Green paper titled ‘A BBC for All’, and will consider its contents within Charter Review policy development.

The government launched the BBC Charter Review last year. The Green Paper set out our ambition for the BBC across a range of topics. This includes considering reforms to the BBC’s governance structures, length of its Royal Charter and obligations to share information. We are also exploring ways for the BBC to engage audiences and reflect public views. On funding, the Green Paper makes clear that we will need to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the BBC’s independence and enabling sufficient levels of oversight of public money.

We welcome the BBC’s response to the government’s Green Paper public Consultation. We will review their response, alongside other responses from the public and stakeholders to the consultation to help ensure we consider a wide range of voices and views on the future of the BBC. These will inform policy decisions for the next BBC Royal Charter, which will be set out in a White Paper, expected to be published later this year.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the BBC proposals, A BBC For All, to ensure the BBC’s funding level is subject to effective and transparent scrutiny.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The government welcomes the BBC’s response to the Charter Review Green paper titled ‘A BBC for All’, and will consider its contents within Charter Review policy development.

The government launched the BBC Charter Review last year. The Green Paper set out our ambition for the BBC across a range of topics. This includes considering reforms to the BBC’s governance structures, length of its Royal Charter and obligations to share information. We are also exploring ways for the BBC to engage audiences and reflect public views. On funding, the Green Paper makes clear that we will need to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the BBC’s independence and enabling sufficient levels of oversight of public money.

We welcome the BBC’s response to the government’s Green Paper public Consultation. We will review their response, alongside other responses from the public and stakeholders to the consultation to help ensure we consider a wide range of voices and views on the future of the BBC. These will inform policy decisions for the next BBC Royal Charter, which will be set out in a White Paper, expected to be published later this year.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the BBC's document entitled a A BBC For All to remove a fixed expiry date on the BBC’s Royal Charter.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The government welcomes the BBC’s response to the Charter Review Green paper titled ‘A BBC for All’, and will consider its contents within Charter Review policy development.

The government launched the BBC Charter Review last year. The Green Paper set out our ambition for the BBC across a range of topics. This includes considering reforms to the BBC’s governance structures, length of its Royal Charter and obligations to share information. We are also exploring ways for the BBC to engage audiences and reflect public views. On funding, the Green Paper makes clear that we will need to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the BBC’s independence and enabling sufficient levels of oversight of public money.

We welcome the BBC’s response to the government’s Green Paper public Consultation. We will review their response, alongside other responses from the public and stakeholders to the consultation to help ensure we consider a wide range of voices and views on the future of the BBC. These will inform policy decisions for the next BBC Royal Charter, which will be set out in a White Paper, expected to be published later this year.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the BBC proposals in A BBC For All to pilot audience forums such as citizens assemblies.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The government welcomes the BBC’s response to the Charter Review Green paper titled ‘A BBC for All’, and will consider its contents within Charter Review policy development.

The government launched the BBC Charter Review last year. The Green Paper set out our ambition for the BBC across a range of topics. This includes considering reforms to the BBC’s governance structures, length of its Royal Charter and obligations to share information. We are also exploring ways for the BBC to engage audiences and reflect public views. On funding, the Green Paper makes clear that we will need to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the BBC’s independence and enabling sufficient levels of oversight of public money.

We welcome the BBC’s response to the government’s Green Paper public Consultation. We will review their response, alongside other responses from the public and stakeholders to the consultation to help ensure we consider a wide range of voices and views on the future of the BBC. These will inform policy decisions for the next BBC Royal Charter, which will be set out in a White Paper, expected to be published later this year.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the safeguards in place to mitigate racial and other bias in the use of retrospective facial recognition technology.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance is in place relating to the thresholds at which retrospective facial recognition searches of the Police National Database may be operated.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Idemia facial recognition algorithm for Home Office strategic facial matching will be rolled out across police forces.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she has taken to determine the number of people who may have been wrongly arrested or questioned by police as a result of incorrect facial recognition matches produced by the Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 software used on the Police National Database.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the number of people who may have been wrongly arrested or questioned by police as a result of incorrect facial recognition matches produced by the Cognitec FaceVACS-DBScan ID v5.5 software used on the Police National Database.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMICFRS) to conduct an inspection of police and relevant law enforcement agencies’ use of retrospective facial recognition. The detail of the inspection and publication of the report are a matter for HMICFRS, but they will look at whether there have been or are likely to have been any wrongful arrests as a result of the use of retrospective facial recognition.

Additionally, the Home Office is aware of the risk of bias in facial recognition algorithms and supports policing in managing that risk. Manual safeguards, embedded in police training, operational practice, and guidance, require all potential matches returned from the Police National Database (PND) to be visually assessed by a trained user and investigating officer. If the trained PND user or investigator decides a facial search image provides a potential match, this must be treated as intelligence rather than evidence and additional lines of enquiry must be undertaken before any action is taken. These safeguards have always been in place, even before the independent National Physical Laboratory (NPL) testing.

The Home Office does not issue guidance on setting algorithm thresholds. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and police forces consider the impact and equitability of facial recognition technology in line with their Public Sector Equality Duty. The threshold is set for all forces by a Chief Constable on behalf of the NPCC to balance the equitability of facial searching, and the operational imperative to find true matches where they are present on PND.

The Home Office takes the findings of the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) report very seriously and has already acted. The Police Reform White Paper included a commitment to invest £26m into the development and delivery of a national facial recognition system for policing using a new algorithm. The new facial recognition algorithm has been independently tested by the NPL and this showed that it can be used at settings with no statistically significant bias. The new service will be operationally tested by the police in the coming months and will be subject to evaluation to inform future decisions about rolling out the new system with the new algorithm.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether an impact assessment into the policy paper on Home Office immigration and nationality fees, due to increase from 8 April 2026, has been conducted.

Answered by Mike Tapp - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Where changes to fee legislation are made, Impact Assessments are produced which identify potential impacts resulting from the changes.

The published Impact Assessment includes discussion of the impacts of the fees that are due to increase from 8 April 2026: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2026/44/pdfs/ukia_20260044_en.pdf

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether there has been any considerations to stop working with unregulated private clinics in prescribing gender-affirming care for adults.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Unregulated private services pose a risk to patient safety as they are not subject to the same regulatory oversight as services registered with the Care Quality Commission. This includes private online services.

It is for an individual general practitioner (GP) to decide whether to accept a request from a private provider for a shared care agreement in relation to hormone medications. The National Health Service has issued guidance that advises GPs not to enter into shared care agreements with unregulated private providers or where GPs are not confident that the request is being made by a reputable organisation.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether it has conducted an impact assessment of the recent announcement to reduce its development budget to 0.3% of Gross National Income by 2027.

Answered by Chris Elmore - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

I refer the Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 19 March outlining the UK's Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocations for the period up to 2028-29, and the accompanying documentation setting out the impact of those allocation decisions. I also refer him to the evidence provided by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for International Development at the International Development Committee on 24 March, where they addressed questions at length about the Government's ODA policies and allocation decisions.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what the exact figure is of ODA that will be spent on International Climate Finance.

Answered by Chris Elmore - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

I refer the Hon Member to the statement made to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 19 March outlining the UK's Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocations for the period up to 2028-29, and the accompanying documentation setting out the impact of those allocation decisions. I also refer him to the evidence provided by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for International Development at the International Development Committee on 24 March, where they addressed questions at length about the Government's ODA policies and allocation decisions.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps her Department is taking to address disparities in hourly rates in relation to national funding for nurseries.

Answered by Olivia Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities)

The department uses the early years national funding formulae (EYNFF) to distribute the early years entitlements budget to local authorities. The EYNFF determine local authority hourly funding rates by taking into consideration the different costs of delivering early years provision in different parts of the country.

The hourly funding rate for each entitlement varies to reflect the costs of delivering provision to different age groups. We know that the cost of delivery is highest for younger children due to higher staff costs, as staffing makes up the most significant proportion of provider costs.

Rates also vary between local authorities reflecting the different communities that local authorities serve. However, it is local authorities who are responsible for setting individual provider funding rates in consultation with their providers and schools forum, and fund providers using their own local funding formula.

The department will consult on changes to how early years funding is calculated and distributed, details of which will be published in 2026, to ensure funding is matched to need.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how calculations of national funding rates by age group for nurseries are currently conducted.

Answered by Olivia Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities)

The department uses the early years national funding formulae (EYNFF) to distribute the early years entitlements budget to local authorities. The EYNFF determine local authority hourly funding rates by taking into consideration the different costs of delivering early years provision in different parts of the country.

The hourly funding rate for each entitlement varies to reflect the costs of delivering provision to different age groups. We know that the cost of delivery is highest for younger children due to higher staff costs, as staffing makes up the most significant proportion of provider costs.

Rates also vary between local authorities reflecting the different communities that local authorities serve. However, it is local authorities who are responsible for setting individual provider funding rates in consultation with their providers and schools forum, and fund providers using their own local funding formula.

The department will consult on changes to how early years funding is calculated and distributed, details of which will be published in 2026, to ensure funding is matched to need.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether (a) she or (b) any members of her Department met or corresponded with Lord Mandelson on Palantir.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

No such meetings took place.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether she has had discussions with her US counterpart on the 2025 UK USAID aid cuts.

Answered by Chris Elmore - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The Foreign Secretary and her Ministerial colleagues engage regularly with US counterparts across the breadth of our shared interests and priorities. USAID funding is a matter for the US Government.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether he has sought advice on triggering the break clause in Palantir’s contract with the NHS.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The current contract for the NHS Federated Data Platform is for seven years, ending in 2031, with the initial term ending March 2027.

Advice is given regularly on the contract and performance, and ministers have been given advice on the need for a decision this year on the extension of the contract in line with standard contract management processes.

We continuously assess performance against the contract, and performance of the programme as a whole, and publish data on uptake and benefits each quarter.

Bermuda and oil industry tax

Use of restraint of children in the asylum system removal process

Palestinian Nakba commemoration march

Health and Social Care

Israeli death penalty law and military courts

Decoupling the price of gas from electricity

Statutory rights for trade union future-proofing jobs representatives

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (No. 2)

UK digital sovereignty strategy

Government response to Israel’s West Bank annexation plan

Found: 2025-12-16 Baroness Keeley To discuss the launch of the BBC Charter Review Ian Murray 2025-12-16 Clive Lewis

Found: